Tuesday, February 28, 2012

We reported last week on the case of Jessie Sansone, a young Canadian father who was arrested, strip-searched, and held in a police cell because his daughter drew a picture of a gun in her kindergarten class.

The incident is still causing a lot of uproar in the Canadian media. The authorities are sticking to their guns so far — “The incident was unfortunate and stressful for all involved, but the school and the police had no choice; they followed the proper procedures.”

Below are two videos from Canadian TV about the Sansone case. The first is from Ezra Levant’s program, and features a discussion with Mr. Sansone’s lawyer:

The second video is a brief interview with a school board superintendent. Pay special attention to the word “co-parent”:

Yes, it’s true: the State is the “co-parent” of your children. And don’t for a minute believe that you and the State are equal partners — when one parent disagrees with the other, who do you think has the ultimate authority?

15
comments:

Men in the west have come to know this up close and personal in the past couple decades. They've been forcibly ejected from their homes by the big alpha state, denied all access to their children on the state and their women's words, often even jailed or worse without due process. The family services and courts system in the western world are some of the most corrupt and, dare I use the word, EVIL hives of scum and villainy we have. A shadow state, able to operate unilaterally outside of the constitution, and may all the gods help you if you become caught up in it.

This? This is just the most recent chapter. There are volumes of such incidences all across the western world. And enough documented that a simple google search should give one the idea of just large and horrifying this is.

Any man (make that white heterosexual man) that gets married in today's world, or worse, has children, is a fool. And make no mistake, that's by design. If they can't slaughter us outright, they'll ensure we die within a generation or two.

fortress, you are only wrong on one level: "Any man (make that white heterosexual man) that gets married in today's world, or worse, has children, is a fool. And make no mistake, that's by design. If they can't slaughter us outright, they'll ensure we die within a generation or two."You are wrong to surrender. It is going to take two parent, mother-father, Mr and Mrs families to fight this. It can't be surrendered. You are right if we don't fight, but not right when you say any man, white heterosexual man is a fool to marry and have children. We are now reaping the whirlwind of the destruction caused by the sexual revolution. We must empower traditional marriage and encourage progeny.We need to stand together, whether married or unmarried against the over-reaching State.

As an added bonus, for example, when talking of the participation of the State in raising families: here in Oz, social security benefits are usually means tested.

There are a few factors that can affect this, but it's too early in the morning and too complicated to go into the gory details right now.

Anyway, as a single parent I receive some benefits. I have to declare any wages received on a fortnightly basis, and there are a few hoops to jump through. Tiresome, but it goes with the territory.

I found out about a year ago, however, that if you are not getting child support from your child's other parent, then you can actually lose benefits.

I'd never thought about it before until talking with one of the other school mums. Her (now ex-) husband was in jail for domestic violence, and therefore wasn't working and earning any money to be sequestered by the child support mob, and so she couldn't make ends meet.

In my case, I don't receive child support so I'm on the lowest level for some payments, but that's by choice. I don't want to drag the courts through my girl's life. Because it was my decision, I hadn't really thought about it.

And now we've got a woman in her 20s with one child in school, another about to start, and no means of support and they're effectively penalising her because she can't get any money from her ex?

But I guess, if the State giveth, the State can also take away.

I have a conversation with the reigning social security mob (Centrelink) here every couple of years about this. "You know you could get more money if you take action?"

"Yes, but my child is very stable and happy and I'm not prepared to upset that for a few more dollars when I can support us."

It's remarkable how often I hear a gasp from the other end of the line after that one.

The superintendent is only speaking freely about what we all know. Talk about the rights of the family is only that.

All it takes is some busybody and you are toast. I took Magilla to see Mark Steyn, for example, and had someone ask me if it was okay for her to attend. I just told them that I didn't ask permission. I'm her parent.

Other parents spoke to me afterwards and said that they should have brought their kids along (young teens), as they felt it would be good for them.

We are so conditioned to allow decisions about our children being made by outside agencies it's scary.

2. Clearly, YOU picked the wrong women for the wrong reasons, and YOU have only yourself to blame for that.

3. With the significant amount of hostility that you display, one can only wonder how YOU treat(ed) the women and children in your life.

4. Women, children, and pets are all too frequently MURDERED by long-term abusive lovers, husbands, and fathers who are awarded legal unsupervised visitation with children.

5. The state is NOT enough on the side of women, children, and pets to actually protect them from any real threat of familial violence.

6. The state is unfair to everyone - whether they be men, women, and children - because the state protects the interests of the state and those interests diverge from the interests of actual people.

7. The EVIL state intends to make every family into a foster family.

8. The state only intends to take responsibility in order to secure more power.

9. At least one public school in the United States released a child to a non-related person during school hours without the parents knowledge or permission. When caught, the school denied that the whereabouts of the student was its responsibility.

P.S. This also happened in the Sandusky affair. One PA high school would allow Sandusky to check out children for his own purposes without the parents' knowledge. That's when some sexual abuse occurred.

10. Imagine the fundraising possibilities for schools if schools can release students to local men without assuming any legal responsibility for the children....

"Because it's our legal requirement to do so." he says. Home schooling, indeed. Notice how every governmental organization excuses themselves with the idea of what is legally required of them. They seem to be saying "It's not me, it's the government" but yet they ARE the government so a citizen shouldn't give a damn what some tendril of this government says is required of them when they say that meaning "Hey, I'm just doing my job." as if they are innocent bystanders. They are not - they are government agents and they made that choice to get a paycheck. This is the Nazi soldier saying that he was just following orders. And when they write laws that no longer honor our rights and yet still call them "legal" -- as in their "legal requirements" -- that they can now pretty much write into law whatever suits them and eventually deny parents any rights at all -- it doesn't take a genius to know it's not going to end well when Western governments every day move more and more towards statism and further away from honoring individual rights. In order to exercise your rights you will have to make yourself an "enemy of the state."

You seem to be under the impression I have surrendered. This is not the case; rather I've come to understand the truth of the situation. There will be no big uprising of disaffected men who have had enough and are going to set things right; that's science fiction or more accurately, fantasy. The idea of a single 'superman' who sets it right with supreme fighting and/or oratory skills is also in those realms; it's not going to happen. The 'fight' as you put it is fixed, the game is rigged. You cannot win by playing, especially by playing you continue to enrich the gamesmasters. No, the only way to win is not to play. I look to my own needs, and those of my immediate family I can save. Nothing else. I starve the beast, and the collapse comes faster. If I'm fast enough, lucky enough, and prepared enough I may actually manage to save myself, some of my family, and maybe...just maybe...have some sort of future once the SHTF. Any many who does anything else is a fool and just feeding the monster that has devoured western civilization, and thus prolonging all our suffering.

Oh wow, did I hit a personal nerve there? I must have. Typical though, this sort of panicked response means that more and more men are waking up to what's going on, and the feminists know that gravy train of their extracted labor is coming to an end...short of herding all men into concentration/slave camps, but we'll see how far they get if they try that. This friends, is what many men deal with on a regular basis. Text book, really. This level of unmitigated hatred coupled with a healthy dose of shaming language to make us go back to our slavery without complaint where we are used and abused until there's nothing left...to 'man up' as it were. There is no empathy to the plight of men in the western world from these types, just a sick desire to put us back in our cubicals where we continue to feed the beast of big bro government and the marxists who have coopted it and destroyed anything resembling the principles of our founding fathers. Any man who wakes up to what is going on and speaks out against this must be smacked down; typically with the feminist talking points Egghead here has parroted quite hilariously. Let's go through them shall we?

1. Men do NOT own 'their' women. Women are free human beings.

Typical accusation. Common misdirection. In no way did at any point specify or imply anything of the sort; 'the sort' being that women are not free human beings in case you wish to pick apart my less than stellar grammar. Feminists, male and femae, love to use this one, as it tries to make a man out to be a misoginist when he's trying to point out their overwhelming misandry. It's also a great way to direct the conversation to something else rather than to the original point: Big daddy commie has it out for those pesky white males and their overwhelming tendancy to act independantly of their rule, how dare they, and are using their manufactured female aggrievance industry as one weapon in their arsenal to destroy them. I tend to say white male, but in all honesty, ALL men are getting the shaft in one way or another in this sad and pathetic play.

2. Clearly, YOU picked the wrong women for the wrong reasons, and YOU have only yourself to blame for that.

I admit to my culpability in that. I will make no excuses about the misinformation I was fed since timeline start zero, both in ignorance and malice, which trained me in my duties as a man of society, while at the same time informing women they no longer had any reciprocal duty. It took a couple of very bad experiences and a reexamination of the initial premesis after observing reality around me to deprogram myself of what I'd been taught and realize what I should have known all along. Had I known from the get go, I'd have gone ghost and never dealt with a western woman at all. I expect the cries of Not All Women Are Like That, next. Which is true, but kinda like saying that all patches on a mine field are not filled with mines. It's too many when I've got a one out of ten shot of getting blown to pieces, but now adays it's more like two out of three shots for my destruction, and the state is out there with a remote detonator to blow up one close to me should it decide to focus its attention on me.

3. With the significant amount of hostility that you display, one can only wonder how YOU treat(ed) the women and children in your life.

This is almost an ad hominem attack. Completely irrelevant to the overall point I was making or its validity. I see no reason to engage this line of questioning. I mean, I could be the devil himself, and still would the points I'm making be no less valid.

4. Women, children, and pets are all too frequently MURDERED by long-term abusive lovers, husbands, and fathers who are awarded legal unsupervised visitation with children.

Ah yes, think of the women and children (even threw in the bunnies and puppies for that extra added bit of horror and guilt). Given the amount of men removed from their homes, incarcerated by the state on only the word of their spouses, denied access to their children, forced into a form of indentured servitude for life, often just because their wife gets bored and wants to thug it up (which her ex is now paying for), and if he fails to pay, it's in debtors prison for him; not to mention the amount of false rape accusations, the redefinition of rape to the point that heterosexual sex itself is nearly classified as rape, the societal outlook that any man with a child is a paeodophile and should be detained and questioned by the boys in blue, not counting all sorts of other violations of their civil rights.... I admit, I find myself completely disinclined to actually care about the plight of women and children that are not related to me. Also, where are your stats on this epidemic of men beating, raping, and killing women and children? The way feminists talk, it's as if every single man is doing that every moment of his life to every woman and child he meets.

5. The state is NOT enough on the side of women, children, and pets to actually protect them from any real threat of familial violence.

Huh?

6. The state is unfair to everyone - whether they be men, women, and children - because the state protects the interests of the state and those interests diverge from the interests of actual people.

Granted. They're making use of the grievance industry however, to destroy a part of society that doesn't tow the party line, or at the very least, to make sure they have a boot heel on their face...forever. This is what I'm describing. To be sure when/if it is ever fully accomplished, women are going to wonder what the heck happened and why the state suddenly turned on them. This will be amusing as they're not going to be the only ones this happens to.

7. The EVIL state intends to make every family into a foster family.

I have no idea what in the world this even means or where you even came up with this.

8. The state only intends to take responsibility in order to secure more power.

Again, granted. You're speaking about the end game though, not the current point. The end game is the afforementioned bootheel of the elites on the face of humanity...forever. We're discussing more how we get there and what it's doing to guys like me right now though.

(final continue)9. At least one public school in the United States released a child to a non-related person during school hours without the parents knowledge or permission. When caught, the school denied that the whereabouts of the student was its responsibility.

Deplorable. Worth discussing. Completely off topic, however.

P.S. This also happened in the Sandusky affair. One PA high school would allow Sandusky to check out children for his own purposes without the parents' knowledge. That's when some sexual abuse occurred.

Also deplorable. Worth discussing. The man should fry, unequivically. I'd pay to be the man at the switch. Also completely off topic.

10. Imagine the fundraising possibilities for schools if schools can release students to local men without assuming any legal responsibility for the children....

Huh. I do believe this point pretty much accuses the male gender of being comprised of nothing but paedophiles and various other types of monsters. That it is only men capable of this form of evil, and that all men are this evil.

I think I will exit this conversation at this point. Being accused of such villainy means that there is no point at all in further discussion of any sort with you, Egghead. You are not an honorable individual, and I will no longer entertain the idea that you can be reasoned with.

Fortress: Personal nerve? Oh yeah. We've got guys around here who believe that women should be denied the vote; and, we've got women like Ann Barnhardt who are crazy enough to encourage the guys. So, yeah, I'm going to jump in when you start female-bashing.

1. I can only go by your words which are very revealing when combined with your anti-female theme. The real problem occurs when men refuse to understand that men do NOT own women and children - and men become violent when confronted with that reality.

2. You have a 'Poor me - the world and the women of the world are out to get me - so now I will even the score' persona that would be extremely unattractive to a psychologically healthy woman.

3. Would you yourself deny that you are hostile to women? Your hostility oozes from your pores.

4. I could give you statistics, but you would surely deny their relevance.

In my personal experience, I have known dozens of women and girls who have been raped with lifelong trauma - none of whom pursued any charges against the men who hurt them. I also knew one woman whose husband held her and her children at gunpoint while threatening to kill everyone all night long. In addition, I have known two women whose husbands murdered them - and were incarcerated after trials.

5. The state forces women to give visitation to men that women know to be violent. Even when violence occurs, the state merely issues meaningless restraining orders that fail to keep the determined man from murdering a woman and her children.

6. I am trying to take you out of your bout with utter self-pity and self-centeredness to see that the state is unfair to everyone - a fact that you seem to acknowledge but STILL end by wanting to punish women - a less than charming, or in your words honorable, trait.

7. The foster family statement is self-explanatory, but here I will explain the obvious.

Here, now, and in the future, the state will allow you to raise your child as long as you bow to the state; but, if you fight the state, the state will take your child from you as if you were just a foster family for that child who is actually owned by the state.

8-10: These points are inter-related and used to show that the state only interferes to protect children when it benefits state aims and state employees.

Indeed, the PA high school - that had a relationship with Sandusky's charity - acted in the capacity of a pimp paid to provide a child prostitute in order to keep the benefits flowing from Sandusky's charity to the high school. So, the high school administrator(s) allegedly greatly pressured the victim child to avoid reporting Sandusky's illegal behavior.

If you think that the English grooming and pimping is bad, wait until the Muslims become school administrators with ZERO legal responsibility for tracking the whereabouts of school children during the day. Hmmm.

Fortress: No one accused you of such villainy. Conversations can be about other subjects than you and your hatred of women.

A much worse state incursion into parents' rights over their own children has just been given the green light by the Canadian Supremes, a band of lefties (this is the future of the USA if Obama gets 1 or 2 more Supreme Court appointments). Quebec, the most backward Canadian province economically because it is a French socialist money pit sucking taxes from the rest of Canada has made a government religious study program mandatory over parental objections. It teaches ALL religions and that they are all equally valid. Christian parents who wanted their children exempted from this lib foolishness were just slapped down by a unanimous Supreme Court that said their religious rights were not abridged by their children having to learn the "reality of their multicultural nation". The Supremes magnanimously "let" parents teach children their own beliefs in their own homes but the daily Monday to Friday indoctrination at school will contradict those teachings. So freedom of religion has been taken from the individual parent by a Supreme Court that jealously guards the state's right to teach religion as liberal pap and make it COMPULSORY. This is far far worse than this little gun cartoon kerfuffle.